Which Lens 24-70 2.8L or 24-105 4.0L IS

[michael_robinson5]

I am considering purchasing one of the above mentioned lens. This is intended

to be on my camera most of the time, for general photography, outdoor landscape,

general potrait. The first important use will be at my niece's wedding to take

place outdoors in Mexico although not as offical photography, any suggestions?

[steve torelli]

Click the "Search" tab and type in "24-70 vs 24-105" to read the endless posts on this precise topic. Good luck.

[james_symington1]

There are lots of threads about this already. Image quality is broadly comparable although the 24-105 does vignette quite obviously when wide open. If you need the shallower DOF then the 24-70 will provide that but the IS on the other lens is invaluable if you have to use small apertures as I frequently do. The 24-105 is significantly lighter and it has a longer reach too. For me the 24-105 makes more sense but for many others the 24-70 is more appropriate. It really boils down to if you need to shoot wide open very much and if your subject is still or not. They are both good lenses.

[kahkityoong]

Get the 24-105mm 4L. The all-round lens in my book. The IS and longer reach makes it a

winner over the 24-70 for my use. I have taken landscapes, street, travel and macro with very

satisfying results. The ideal one lens solution for the 5D.

[Landrum Kelly]

This has been done to death, but here goes:

 

If I were carrying one lens on the camera and nothing else, I would carry the 24-105.

 

If I also had the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, then I would carry it and the 24-70 2.8L--thus being covered from 24mm out to 200mm. With an extender, I could go to even longer focal lengths.

 

One of my Domke bags currently has the Canon 5D camera, the 24-70, the 70-200 IS, the EX 580, and two extenders. That leaves me without any primes in the bag, but it is a pretty versatile but manageable package.

 

--Lannie

[m_barbu1]

In my experience, f/4 is too slow for available light photography at weddings. Inevitably, it will get dark (at the end of the day), or you will be indoors. For that reason alone, I would pick the 24-70 over the 24-105. Having the ability to have a shallow depth of field is also nice. This will give you the ability to isolate the person(s) you are photographing from the countless others in the background. You might also consider having a faster lens, unless you've got a decent flash and are certain you can use it effectively.

[lester_wareham]

I have adopted an aproach of combining f4 zooms and fast primes as f2.8 is only a stop faster and fast prime can do much better when you need the speed but you can't use IS due to subject movement.

[pjmeade]

As mentioned above, this is a very well documented topic.

 

I have taken many thousands of shots with my 24-105 wide open on a 20D and haven't seen vignetting on a single one. It may be different on a 5D, but then that lens is often bundled with the 5D.

 

Which one you get will be goverened by your planned use, personal preferences and budget. I expect that most people who have one, or both of them love them to bits.

 

Just my 2p.

 

Pete

[andrewlamb]

I own the 24-70 and had a chance to try out the 24-105 recently. I have a slight preference

for the former. I think it's a tiny bit and sharper and the AF seemed to work better. This is an

entirely non-scientific comparison, however.

[j_smith6]

I would buy faster one... the AF will work better, and you'll can take sharp pictures in low light. Just compare f/2.8 to f/4.0...

[mendel_leisk]

I have both and the 70-200 f2.8 IS. I don't see that having the latter should sway your decision. I'd get the 70-105, for the IS, and the fact that is lighter and more compact. You won't regret it.

[gary_ferguson1]

<<I have taken many thousands of shots with my 24-105 wide open on a 20D and haven't seen vignetting on a single one. It may be different on a 5D, but then that lens is often bundled with the 5D.>>

 

It's true that the 24-105 vignettes (and distorts) at the wide end, but both of these issues are easily corrected in Photoshop and the sharpness is stunning. I tried the 24-105 versus the Canon 24mm T&S and a Zeiss/Contax 25mm (used with an adapter) and the 24-105 was marginally sharper at all apertures than either of these fixed focal lenses.

[dcheung]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=355&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0&Camera=9&CameraComp=9

 

the above link has test shots that show the 24-70 is sharper.

[notso bad]

I picked this because of IS, longer range, and lighter weight. It depends of course on your shooting style. For me IS was a big draw. Sometimes 2.8 can be too shallow (DOF)

 

I am happy with 24-105 and the 50/1.8

By the way I think that the 24-105 at 60-105 wide open is good for portraits as far as background blur is concerned.

[trothwell]

Neat question, huh? I think it's pretty clear that any given respondent may have a different answer than any other given respondent, and with good reason. Both lenses are good, and which one is right for you depends on your own preferences.

 

Me? I have the 24-70. There are times I wish I had the 24-105, but I imagine that if I were using the 24-105 then I would more often wish I had the 24-70 than vice-versa. I love getting shallow depth of field and being able to freeze action in darker environments. Sure, it's only one stop faster, but one stop is one stop.

[lucafoto]

I went with the 24-70 because I had a plan for my lens collection, and all of the reviews lead me to that lens.

My next lens in my plan was the 70-200 2.8 IS, followed by the 85 1.2. I am not sure which one is next for me:

16-35 2.8

50 1.2

300 2.8

It all depends on cash flow and need, not just desire.

 

But all the reviews tell me these are the top of their class for my 5D.

There are a plethora of lens reviews out there and in this forum... read all of them and get back to us on your choice :P

[steve_crist]

When people ask for advice on which lens to use, they really need to state what camera body it will be used with. With the three sensors used by Canon, a 24-70 lens could be a 24-70, 31-91, or 38-112. I have a 5D and a 20D with the 17-40, 24-70, 70-200 and 100-400 L lenses. I vary the lens/body combination depending on what I'm shooting. On the 20D my 100-400 effectively is a 160-640. Great for wildlife and birds. However the 17-40 on the 20D turns into a 27-64, which isn't wide enough in certain cases.

[phyrpowr]

For your needs as cited above, get the 24-105 for the IS and the extra reach.

 

I had a 2.8 zoom, and found I just had no need for the extra speed, as I seldom wanted to "stop action", and little interest in shallow depth of field

[jim_larson1]

"If I were carrying one lens on the camera and nothing else, I would carry the 24-105."

 

Ummm. Well. Uhhh. On vacation, yes, if chooing a single lens I would value "IS" over "portraits" (F4 does not a great portrait make!). At a wedding. . I would go for the 2.8 over the 4L-IS.

 

The optimal choice I would be to pair the 24-105/4L-IS with a portrait prime or two (50/1.x or 85/1.8 or both)

[KenPapai]

Both the 24-70 and 24-105 are fine lenses.

 

My simple rule of thumb is that fast lenses always trump slower lenses. In Canon lingo "fast" means f/2.8 or wider, so definitely go for the 24-70 unless you find I.S. appealing on a slower lens.

 

I could not imagine paying the premium for I.S. on a slow lens (therefore I use a tripod).

[jim_doty]

Michael,

 

One more vote for the 24-105, but only because I find IS (image stabilization) to be very useful for some of my shooting. If IS was not important, I would opt for the faster lens.

 

The extra reach is nice but not essential. If I want to go to 100mm I can, but I can also go to a longer lens.

 

Do you have any IS lenses and do you find IS to be valuable? That might help with your decision.

 

Jim

[todd_masters]

search 24-105 vs. 24-70 and read as much as you want but hey since everyone is still replying why not make these threads the most threaded subject on photo.net? I have both and yes I still use 24-105 90% of the time, that extra 35mm reach is hard to give up. I also use the 50mm 1.4 when lights go dim for speed. What you listed above the 24-105 is what I believe you would be happier with. IS+35mm extra reach vs. f2.8 and for me that is why that lens rarely leaves my camera. Next lens for me would be the 85mm so eventually I will sell the 24-70 for that one. My suggestion is to stop reading, reasearching, searching and pondering - just buy the 24-105 now and spend that time and energy shooting! Shortly thereafter you can start replying to this quesion like all of us to your heart's content!

[keith_lubow]

Hello,

 

When I got my first digital (and first EOS) camera earlier this year, I got the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 IS with it. I carry a 1D Mk. II-N with the 24-70 and a 20D with the 70-200. I find myself wishing that I had got the 24-105 instead, because I more often find myself wanting more reach than I find myself wanting a larger aperture. I am interested in journalism, so I have no qualms at all about bumping the ISO as high as it needs to go to get a shot. What I really don't like doing is having to switch bodies all the time. If I had got the 24-105 instead, I would probably have to switch to the 20D and longer zoom about half as much as I do now, not to mention that I would have IS at the wide end. So, if you are against using high ISOs, I would say go for the 24-70. However, if you don't mind some digital noise, I think you;d gain a lot of convenience by getting the 24-105.

 

Keith

[mendel_leisk]

I doubt I confused anyone for long, but for the record, my:

 

"I'd get the 70-105"

 

should have read:

 

"I'd get the 24-105"

[matthias_meixner2]

The 25-70 is considerably heavier than the 24-105. Therefore, if weight is an issue, the 24-105 is the way to go. I would not want to carry around the 24-70 on my neck all day, the 24-105 is already quite heavy ...